Trenberth's missing heat? Look to the deep

From the National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research  an explanation for Global Ocean Heat Content Is Still Flat.

Graph by Bob Tisdale - not part of the NCAR/UCAR press release

Key point from the press release:

Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model

This new paper (which hasn’t been put online yet at NCC as of this writing, I’ll post a link as soon as I have one) from Trenberth is simply modeling, and modeling so far hasn’t done a very good job of accounting for the oceans:

I’d like to see some supporting observations, otherwise this is just speculation for something that Trenberth is doggedly trying to explain away. My question is; show me why some years the deep ocean doesn’t mask global warming. It’s not like that big heat sink was suddenly removed.

Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

BOULDER — The planet’s deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the “missing heat” during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

“We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future,” says NCAR’s Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. “However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line.”

The research, by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, will be published online on September 18 in Nature Climate Change. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, and the Department of Energy.

Where the missing heat goes

The 2000s were Earth’s warmest decade in more than a century of weather records. However, the single-year mark for warmest global temperature, which had been set in 1998, remained unmatched until 2010.

Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth, according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.

The two scientists, who are coauthors on the new study, suggested that the oceans might be storing some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes, such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow. Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model’s ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

During these hiatus periods, simulations showed that extra energy entered the oceans, with deeper layers absorbing a disproportionate amount of heat due to changes in oceanic circulation. The vast area of ocean below about 1,000 feet (300 meters) warmed by 18% to 19% more during hiatus periods than at other times. In contrast, the shallower global ocean above 1,000 feet warmed by 60% less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.

“This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean,” Trenberth says. “The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”

A pattern like La Niña

The simulations also indicated that the oceanic warming during hiatus periods has a regional signature. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes, especially around 30°S and 30°N in the Pacific and between 35°N and 40°N in the Atlantic, where surface waters converge to push heat into deeper oceanic layers.

These patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event, according to Meehl. He adds that El Niño and La Niña events can be overlaid on top of a hiatus-related pattern. Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer.

“The main hiatus in observed warming has corresponded with La Niña conditions, which is consistent with the simulations,” Trenberth says.

The simulations were part of NCAR’s contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). They were run on supercomputers at NCAR’s National Science Foundation-supported Climate Simulation Laboratory, and on supercomputers at Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, both supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy.

###

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

=======================

h/t to WUWT reader Bradley Fikes

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
205 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
September 18, 2011 12:54 pm

If they want to concede that some of the solar energy has gone into the deeps then so be it.
That raises the possibility that at least some of the recent ocean surface warming is from such energy resurfacing from the MWP 1000 years ago which is the approximate length of the thermohaline circulation.
That would help to explain the apparently steady change in ocean CO2 absorption characteristics recorded at Mauna Loa despite current or recent atmospheric variability.
I wish they would approach their speculations from a more holistic point of view.

Garry
September 18, 2011 12:54 pm

I get it: hot air sinks, cold water rises.
Not what we were taught in middle school science class, but I guess if Trenberth can model it with “powerful software tools” then it must be so.

John W
September 18, 2011 12:57 pm
Gary
September 18, 2011 12:58 pm

We can’t actually measure the heat energy in the deep ocean, but we can make a really complex simulation of where we would like it to be so that’s where it is and it must have consequences.
Sounds an awful lot like magical thinking. Or pre-school thinking.

Bob Diaz
September 18, 2011 1:04 pm

RE: “The study, based on computer simulations of global climate,…”
That raises a big red flag. While a computer simulation can be useful, it can also be wrong. Garbage In = Garbage Out.
The study might have some credibility IF there were measurements over time showing the change in heat at different depths.

DirkH
September 18, 2011 1:06 pm

michel says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“This is a very naive question, but is it not possible to simply measure the heat content of the ocean depths? Why cannot one lower probes or measure by submersibles?”
The ARGO buoys do that up to a depth of 2,000 m. If the missing heat hides below that depth, it must have sneaked by the ARGO buoys undetected for the first 2,000 m. In the words of the IPCC: “Highly unlikely”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

P Walker
September 18, 2011 1:08 pm

Bob Tisdale ,
700 meters isn’t deep enough . The missing heat is obviously hiding in the Marianas Trench where it is warming Atlantis and the sea monkeys .

Dale
September 18, 2011 1:09 pm

Isn’t science supposed to be:
1. Come up with theory
2. Model it to make sure it’s possible
3. Find empirical data (through experiment or observation) to confirm theory?
Seems Kevin believes it is:
1. Come up with theory
2. Model it to confirm theory

Sean Peake
September 18, 2011 1:11 pm

A powerful software tool AND a dessert topping!

polistra
September 18, 2011 1:18 pm

Any theory that relies on hidden variables is prima facie NON-SCIENCE.
Oceans are an integral part of the system. Their effects are not accidental, temporary, or extraneous.
My car is actually going 500 MPH every time I drive it, but miscellaneous extraneous factors like air drag, friction, brakes and finite fuel-pump capacity are hiding the real speed. I am uniquely aware of its truly awesome real speed, because I have secret knowledge.

R. Shearer
September 18, 2011 1:19 pm

Can we just settle where the missing heat is by a show of hands?

David, UK
September 18, 2011 1:22 pm

“To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model.”
She must be one powerful model. With powers like that, someone should tell her to track which balls are going to drop at the next national lottery.

Theo Goodwin
September 18, 2011 1:23 pm

‘“This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean,” Trenberth says. “The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”’
Yo, Warmista! If you want people to have confidence in your models, you should create the model first and then use it to forecast coming events. Apparently, you have not noticed, and I guess no one told you, that you are doing it in reverse. You are discovering heat phenomena that you cannot account for and then – thirteen years later – creating a model which finds the heat in the deep oceans where there is no observable evidence!
In all of this, you do nothing to give people confidence that your models are in touch with observable reality. Your models do not track observable phenomena in any way whatsoever.
Your method is the method of the con man. You want trust from citizens today for the output of a model that will be available Tuesday after next. Just stop it! You are embarrassing not only genuine scientists but genuine academics of all sorts.

Green Sand
September 18, 2011 1:25 pm

R. Shearer says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Can we just settle where the missing heat is by a show of hands?

Only if I can keep my gloves on!

Gary Swift
September 18, 2011 1:28 pm

Hey, I designed a powerfull software tool that says I’m going to be a billionair within the next decade? Is that how this works?
Ternberth, you need to bring some data that supports your powerfull software tool or it’s no better than my powerfull sofware tool.
All your models are belonging to me.
Muahahahah.

Jason Joice M.D.
September 18, 2011 1:30 pm

I love how they don’t even say something like the model gives a possible explanation for where the heat might be. They seriously indicate that the models are equal to or superior to direct observation. This truly is post-modern science.

rbateman
September 18, 2011 1:33 pm

Looking at this link: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
where we find the ENSO index numerics for 2000 to 2010, I calculated the average:
0.07878787879
There has been no significant La Nina ENSO absorbtion by the Pacific from 2000 to 2010, being that it is slightly positive. I call that trace positive. A meteorological neutral.
Whoops, no overwhelming absorbtion to feed Trenberth’s Missing Heat.
We’re sorry, the Pipeline is disconnected or is no longer in service.
Please hang up and Model again.

Green Sand
September 18, 2011 1:40 pm

Maybe Trenberth is on to something, is this an world domination attempt by the the genus Electrophorus? Who else could store and hide energy in the deep?
Be afraid, be very afraid, they walk swim amongst you.

Eyes Wise Open
September 18, 2011 1:42 pm

Problem is, this is the “model” they used:

kwik
September 18, 2011 1:43 pm

“To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model.”
Just like the (G)Oracle of Delphi.

Jim Barker
September 18, 2011 1:43 pm

Nothing up my sleeve and Presto: the missing heat! Super models saving the planet one byte at a time:-)

September 18, 2011 1:46 pm

I just came back from the Sorce meeting in Arizona
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/
It was a very nice meeting. Our dear friend Leif was there too. Unfortunately he did not have time to listen me explaining him why his criticism to the planetary theory of the solar oscillations is flawed, which would have prevented him to do further damage.
About Trenberth.
Trenberth presented his theory that the lack of warming observed since 2000 was nothing but an occasional decadal variation of the ENSO. Essentially, he used his GCM to prove that sometime the computer simulations could run flat for periods of 10 years from where he deduced his interpretation of the lack of warming as a momentarily red noise fluctuation.
One day after Trenberth, I presented my own results regarding the quasi 60-year climate oscillation that explains the observed patterns in the temperature since 1850 quite better than Trenberth’s hypothesis.
After my talk Trenberth appeared quite shocked, he could not believe it. Of course he started claiming that my way to analyzing the data was not acceptable but he was not able to prove why. On the contrary, I proved him that his GCM model was totally unable to reproduce the warming from 1910 to 1940 and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. His model essentially runs flat until the 1960s and then starts to rise!
After, I gave him my three last papers on the 60-year cycle which would seriously question the AGW theory.
A. Mazzarella and N. Scafetta, “Evidences for a quasi 60-year North Atlantic Oscillation since 1700 and its meaning for global climate change,” Theor. Appl. Climatol., DOI 10.1007/s00704-011-0499-4 (2011).
C. Loehle and N. Scafetta, “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data,” The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 5, 74-86 (2011).
N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
Let us see if something happens 🙂

Iskandar
September 18, 2011 1:47 pm

I really do give a sh** about the outcome of models. They are 110% artificial, a competent modellist can tune them to give you any liked response. A model is never, ever proof that a particular theory is correct, it only indicates that that particular theory can be reproduced by a model.
Which is likely to evoke my claim: I can model any process on this planet, proving that increasing CO2 is the culprit.
Challenge me?

Dale
September 18, 2011 1:49 pm

Hey Trenberth!
I currently have on my PC a very powerful software model of the entire Earth and its systems. The model is over 20 years old, in its fifth major iteration. The model is backed by hundreds of programmers, designers and testers over the full 20 years, funded by a company worth billions, and run by millions of people worldwide. I would estimate that this model has been run through literally hundreds of millions of times.
The science is in and settled!
This very powerful software model proves, after hundreds of millions of runs simulating 4000BC to 2100AD, that:
– Spearmen beat tanks in a battle
– Knights can shoot down helicopter gunships
– Rifles don’t use gunpowder
– You can build a modern navy without iron
And best of all,
– Human industrialization has no effect on the planet
– Global warming does not exist.
I suggest you take a look at this very powerful software model. Easy to find, just Google “Sid Meier’s Civilization V”.

Dr A Burns
September 18, 2011 1:49 pm

Are these people serious ? Surprise, surprise, ‘look what the model has produced, it must be true’, rather than ‘look what the model has been programmed to produce”.